The U.S. Small Business Administration, the Better Business Bureau and the commissioner of the revenue have no category for them. They have no official logo and no trade union. These businesses rank from the Fortune 500 to the not so fortunate. They employ handfuls or hundreds and string from Honolulu to Hartford.

They are Christian-owned and Christian-run businesses, and depending on your persuasion, you may be inclined to swear by them – or at them. But one thing is for certain: It’s harder these days to spot what’s what.

“It’s such an organic thing,” said Randy Singer, an attorney-turned-missions-executive from Hampton Roads who travels across the country teaching what it means to be a Christian businessperson. He is also an adjunct professor at Regent University.

“I’m seeing a lot of blurring between what a Christian business is and what a secular business is. People are integrating spiritual aspects of their lives into the workplace, which is driven by this macro-force of blurring the lines between work and other parts of our lives. Many people are working from home. Fewer people are punching time clocks. When that happens, you can’t compartmentalize faith and work. They blend together.”

But do they blend, or do they slam into a head-on collision? When should Christian employers ’fess up to their faith, and when will their transparency land them in the middle of a lawsuit? What follows is a look at how some Christian business educators and Christian business owners approach those questions, and how a sampling of the secular community responds.

This article has some excellent questions about handling religion in the workplace.

The following article is a stark illustration of that 'stealth dominionism' that is creeping out under the cover of government and starting to strangle our rights.

One of the main jobs at the Justice Department is enforcing the nation's civil rights laws. So when a nonprofit group was accused of employment discrimination last year in New York, the department moved swiftly to intervene -- but not on the side one might expect.

The Salvation Army was accused in a lawsuit of imposing a new religious litmus test on employees hired with millions of dollars in public funds.

When employees complained that they were being required to embrace Jesus Christ to keep their jobs, the Justice Department's civil rights division took the side of the Salvation Army.

Defending the right of an employer using public funds to discriminate is one of the more provocative steps taken by a little-known arm of the civil rights division and its special counsel for religious discrimination.

The Justice Department's religious-rights unit, established three years ago, has launched a quiet but ambitious effort aimed at rectifying what the Bush administration views as years of illegal discrimination against religious groups and their followers.

Many court decisions have affirmed the rights of individuals in the public sector not to have religious beliefs imposed on them -- the Supreme Court ruling banning school-sponsored prayer in public schools among them. And courts have ruled that the rights of religious groups sometimes need protection too -- upholding, for example, their right to have access to public buildings for meetings.

But the argument that a religious institution spending public funds has the right to require employees to embrace its beliefs -- and that it will be backed by the Justice Department in doing so -- has changed the debate. It is an argument the Bush administration is making in Congress as well as in the courts.

If anyone knows if this case has been ruled on yet, let me know. It's a very critical case, as you can see.

Its grassroots, looking for volunteers to help maintain it's database. I especially like that it can be downloaded to your IPOD, so as you spend your money you know where.

Not to be incredibly radical, because I am far from it [conservative, republican, gay] but I truly believe the almighty dollar speaks louder than anything else. If the dominionist movement is to be halted then it must get as little funding as possible. Their sheep will always donate, but why should we contribute to a cause we haven't bought into?

I was wondering if there was a list compiled of overtly dominionist corporations. Not just Republican or conservative, but out right pro-christian extremists. I looked through the links and didn't find anything like that and was cusious becuase of the previous Chick-fil-a post.

Hope this ends up in the right place. Sorry if it doesn't, I'll keep trying. I am not really a technorati, so I cannot tell if this starts a thread or just ends up in journal somewhere. Oh well.

David Wolfe is the person in question. He started a medical billing group in Oregon, and now owns an ISP called SpiritOne. He is listed on the Renew America website - or at leat the name David Wolfe - as one of the 25 most influention conservative Christians who has not been recognized by the Bush administration. Any info on this guy?

Also, is this church an secret dominionist church? I tried to read their stuff but I just do not have the lingo you folks do. I say yes, but I am an amateur with a touch of paranoia. Thanks

Project Tocsin has a very interesting article on their blog page regarding godcasters that is in reference to a recent article on the main group in the US coordinating "godcasting" groups, televangelists and the like. (The original Harper's article is available here as part of their "Soldiers of Christ" collection on dominionism.)

Specifically, the Tocsin article details a national conference of "godcasting" broadcasters by the National Religious Broadcasters, which included an awards ceremony at which an FCC employee received an award:

The convention opened on Saturday evening with an awards ceremony highlighted by the prestigious Chairman’s Award which was something of a paradox as it was “for serving the Christian community in a distinguished and exemplary manner,” but it was given to a nonbeliever, homophobic talk radio host, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who received a standing ovation. She acknowledged the award by saying she was “just a Jewish girl from the Bronx,” and that “we both serve the same God.”

Another award which one would think raises conflict-of-interest issues was given to Federal Communications Commission Chief of Media, Roy Stewart, the senior staff person who handles all broadcast matters. He accepted his award saying, “It is you who should be honored.”

FCC spokesperson David Sisk said the bureau had no policy about FCC employees receiving awards from those whom they regulate that everyone including the FCC commissioners receive awards all the time. Also honored as TV program of the year was Pat Robertson’s 700 Club.

This so far makes two confirmed dominionist-friendly regulators in the FCC--the other being advisor Penny Nance (whose connections to dominionist groups are thoroughly documented here.

The really worrying thing, however, is that Roy Stewart is head of the Media Bureau of the FCC (which is the division that regulates both radio and television stations, including LPFM stations). Per the FCC Phonebook he is still employed there, and per the Media Bureau's bureau chief listing he is Senior Deputy Media Chief of the Media Bureau. Roy Stewart is also--notably--Chief, Office of Broadcast License Policy. (In other words, the very guy who accepted the award from the National Religious Broadcasters is the very guy who sets official FCC policy for who gets and who doesn't get an FCC broadcast license.)

Hello All. I am humbled by your breadth of knowledge. I have a question.Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International (FGBMFI) Who are these folks? I believe they are charismatic/pentecostals but in my neck of the woods they seem to be functioning as the religious right arm of the republican party. They host events, work in media, pretend to be accepting....(will not allow Muslim's to be prayer leaders at their events and have anti-gay speakers)I think they are a loose affiliation of all the churches that have no homes and support or entertain dominionist theology.

Today's Talk To Action entry talks about what books and magazines to read, what websites to monitor, and other things you can do if you think that the Religious Right is a problem.

If You Think the Religious Right is a Problem....There are lots of things to be done.

One of the first things to do --- is to learn more about it.

The Christian Right is one of the most successful political movements in American history. Yet people's level of literacy about the subject is often, well, shockingly low. The Christian Right is the dominant faction in the GOP. There are reasons for that. But few seem to know what those reasons are. If we are going to have intelligent conversations about all this, let alone be able to have coherent discussions about what to do, we need to have more people who share a common base of knowledge and the language necessary to have meaningful conversations. After many years, I know that useful knowledge and conversation in this area can be hard to come by.

So here is my up-by-the-bootstraps, do-it-yourself program for coming up to speed: books, magazines, conferences, videos, blogging -- and a radical idea.

Fred Clarkson goes on to list various places to go- including this board!- to learn more about the Religious Right. It's an excellent reference.

The Slactivist talks about why the "Left Behind" series are the worst books ever written:

When we were first putting together the Evangelical Environmental Network, I was kind of jealous of our partners forming similar groups among Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jewish congregations. They all had structures to work with. Those groups had organizations and hierarchies that allowed our partners to quickly and officially establish legitimacy with the constituencies they were trying to reach.

Evangelicals have no such structures. Instead of church polity, we have a marketplace. Influence and authority are not determined by tradition, by hierarchy, by spiritual discernment or democratic election embodying collective wisdom. Instead, they are determined by book sales, TV ratings, fund-raising acumen, and how many radio stations one owns.

This is a hell of a way to run a church.

Some of these market mechanisms can, I suppose, be passable proxies for a democratic form of church governance. Take for example the recent rise to national prominence of the Rev. Rick Warren. One could argue that the success of his book, The Purpose-Driven LIfe, represents the wisdom of the people -- that the body of believers has voted with their dollars to elect Warren as a pseudo-bishop in our market-driven church. But this kind of "election" usually has more to do with the flim-flammery of marketing than it does with the will of the Holy Spirit. I'd trust the system more if we just cast lots like the early church did in selecting a replacement for Judas.

This market-driven ecclesiology gets more disturbing the more you learn about the cynical, pragmatic outlook of groups like the NRB and the CBA. That would be the National Religious Broadcasters and the Christian Booksellers Association (although books account for less than a fifth of their sales). Think of them as our colleges of pseudo-cardinals, or the pseudo-archbishops who with their money and marketing appoint our pseudo-bishops.

This is part of what frightens and angers me about the phenomenal popularity of the Worst Books Ever Written. LaHaye and Jenkins are spreading their political agenda and worldview -- their triumphalist, Jonah-like delight in the damnation of their enemies, their sociopathic lack of empathy -- and the popularity of this agenda in turn lends it a kind of spiritual authority. And that is part of why this quixotic, elliptical-but-thorough assault on these awful books means more to me than simply a diverting way to spend my Fridays.

Interesting comparison- evangelicals use money as a means to determine authority rather than a hierarchy. I have sometimes privately wondered if money isn't actually more important to some sects than actual worship of Christ. Especially the 'non denominational' megachurches.

While I might not be Christian myself, the thought of walking on the name of its savior makes me uncomfortable. I know that such a thing would never happen in Islamic culture- throwing shoes at someone is the ultimate insult there.

When World magazine wrote about a church embroiled in controversy, the Christian publication noted that the "mainstream media had badly garbled the story."

And when the Christian Broadcasting Network covered founder Pat Robertson's trip to India, a reporter matter-of-factly described miracles that had been delivered.

In the world of Christian news, you'll find a biblical perspective on the day's events and a notable lack of skin and celebrity gossip.

"We're sort of the goody-two-shoes network," said Lorri Allen, news director for FamilyNet.

Some Christians say that's exactly what they want. Many are turning to religious media for their news, and they're finding a growing number of outlets - from TV newscasts and magazines to radio shows and Web sites.

Sacred media is more trustworthy than its secular counterparts, some churchgoers say. Christianity is a worldview, they say, and religious news outlets provide an alternative for those who reject mainstream media.( Read more... )

The setting: Wal Mart. The plot (or that other term I forgot): clothes shopping, for my brother. So, naturally, I have nothing to do with it...and one favorite place of mine to venture off to is the magazine rack - always has been. AND, so well perched, to the left of the rack is a string of books, most being Christian is publication.

But, on a small island of books outside of the aisle, one book particularly caught my eye. Still knowing this rack is mostly Chrisitan titles, I pick up this "one" book, holding my breath... ...and by it's idiocy, makes me want to gouge out my eyes: "The How-to's Guide to Survive the End of The World." (OR something of that nature.)

I flip to one spot, and find: "How to spot the Anti-Chirst." Ok... I read, and find shit I already knew: the head wound, "enemy of God," blah blah. But, then I turn the page and see the word, "Jewishness." I wanted to cry. It says that one of the pre-requisites of the Anti-Christ IS to be Jewish. Just then, the NEED to get over the PA system chot through me. TO TELL the rest of the store of idiocy in print.

(However, I didn't. And I regret it. ::smirks::) The chaos would be fun - but with a purpose.

The band Sonicflood was pretty big in the CCM world several years ago. Everyone listened to them. And they really popularized the song: "In the Secret (I Want to Know You)" On their self-titled album, there's a spoken part recorded after this particular song that really, I think, expresses a lot of the Religious Right's ideas... Sonicflood was pretty mainstream, and, consequently, so are these ideas among Evangelical Christians.

Foundations can't be moved, without destroying a building. If the foundation of this building we're in, right now, were moved, what would happen to the building? It would collapse. Now you can move the building and put it on another foundation, but that foundation-- it's there. Because foundations are secure. Because this nation-- we know what the foundation is-- it's all over the Constitution. It's all over the walls of the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial. It's written throughout history. Regardless of what the politicians believe, regardless of what you and I attest to, truth is truth. The Founding Fathers built it on the truth of the word of God. Everything about the laws of this land were taken from the Scripture, from Old Testament. They were right from, uhh, the Old Testament books of the law. And so, you can't move away from that foundation without destroying the nation. And so this whole debate and argument over what's truth and what's not truth-- the only truth that founded this nation-- we left a country of tyranny for religious freedom to worship. And God's not afraid of who or how you worship because he knows, sooner or later, if you're truly seeking, you'll see him. God's not insecure. He's confident, and so we need to come to him, see him as he is, and that's true worship. Because in the midst of that, all securities are made clear and all fears are relieved.

The statement doesn't actually make a lot of sense in some parts, but I guess that's why these guys are in music rather than public speaking.

I was reminded of driving my friend's old fish-car last fall, after putting a Joe Hoeffel for Senate sticker on my car. This again made me a self-consciously courteous driver -- I didn't want to cost Joe any votes with my driving.

But a campaign sticker is a very different thing from a fish symbol. A campaign sticker doesn't carry the same implicit assertion of my own virtue. It simply indicates, "I'm voting for Joe and I think you should too," which invites a very different response than a symbol which says, "I am a Good Person, most likely a Better Person Than You." It's that implicit claim of goodness that invites such a skeptical response to the fish symbol, triggering the selective mental cataloging of every driving blunder by fish cars. This may be why I'm more likely to have a preconceived, negative opinion about the relative driving skills of a fish-car driver than I am an opinion about someone with, say, a rainbow sticker or a sticker of Calvin peeing on something.( Read more... )

Christians are among those sounding the alarm about the ethics of this retail giant. Are the worries justified?

by Jeff M. Sellers | posted 04/22/2005 09:30 a.m.

The cavernous hallway outside Chicago City Council chambers is echoing with the sound of 150 people chanting, "We're fed up, we won't take it no mo'!"

The lady with the megaphone is leading a mix of union workers and community reform activists shouting slogans against the world's largest retailer. One of the protesters, Ella Hereth of the advocacy group Jobs with Justice, tells CT that Wal-Mart is the "poster boy for corporate exploitation."

She ticks off the complaints: low pay, scant benefits, race and sex discrimination, and profiting from mistreated workers in foreign "sweatshops." Before the Chicago City Council votes to block one store but allow another, aldermen label Wal-Mart "the worst company in America" and an "evildoer."

As it has grown into a powerhouse with sales of $256.3 billion—more than the sales of Microsoft and retail competitors Home Depot, Kroger, Target, and Costco combined—Wal-Mart has become a lightning rod nationwide in local tempests of moral outrage. Church leaders (primarily mainline, liberal, and Roman Catholic) have joined grassroots activists fearful that mindless global market factors will steamroll human dignity.( Read more... )